8K vs 4K for a large computer monitor?

[beefkabob]

I just ordered the LG CX 48" display to use as a computer monitor. It's 4K and OLED with 120Hz and HDR, so it's pretty hot stuff. I love the black blacks and often view in a dim or dark room. Mainly it will be a work monitor. With it pushed back as far as possible, I will get a about 38" from eyes to screen. That is just on the edge of where 8k becomes visibly better with 20/20 vision. I supposedly have 20/20 with my glasses. More like 20/800 without, no joke.

Then there's the Samsung QN55Q900RBFXZ. 7" bigger is a lot. It will force me to get another 2-3" closer to fit on the desk, so 35-36" viewing distance. More DPI. Not as good color or blacks. Way, way more resolution, of course. Still excellent colors, at least.

Thoughts?

 

[AudioStudies]

I am not a believer in 8K, I have a 4k, but am saving for a 4K OLED, I will go with 55-inch. I will go the Sony route because of the Android operating system.

 

[Icboschert]

Honest question, are OLEDs safe to use for monitors yet? Wouldn't want that task bar to burn in

 

[RickSanchez]

It would somewhat depend on what you're using the monitor for. That said, I kind of think you answered the question already ...

1. If you were using the 8k monitor for really detailed work (e.g., graphic design) then yes, great DPI is a good thing but you can't make the trade off with worse colors/blacks.
2. If you were using the 8k monitor for video or gaming ... I don't know, but 36" viewing distance from a 55" monitor seems like it would cause horrible eye strain.

My point being I don't think the extra DPI gets you anything, is likely way more expensive, and you're sacrificing color accuracy and black levels. That 4k OLED monitor with HDR and 120Hz refresh rate sounds pretty awesome to me. I dabble with some graphic design work, I wish I had that monitor in my home office.

 

[bigjacko]

What kind of work do you do with that monitor? If you are doing graphics color accuracy is an important thing for you. If you want to game there is no graphics card that can push to 8k well, you would end up a 55'' 4k or even 2k depend on your graphics card.

 

[JeffS7444]

I was recently browsing at my options for a new media PC, and in the case of DRM-protected content, it appeared that Intel SGX support might be needed, which implies using Intel video, and there ain't no 8K flavor of that yet, at least not as of the 10th-generation Comet Lake CPUs.

And then there's the matter of support for the very new H.266 codec, and if that needs to be supported at the chip level, there's another reason to wait awhile.

Came away with the impression that it's a great time to buy into 4K, but an iffy time to buy into 8K if you hope to watch streaming content at full 8K resolution.

 

[beefkabob]

Honest question, are OLEDs safe to use for monitors yet? Wouldn't want that task bar to burn in

My laptop has an OLED display. I've had no burn in that I've noticed. There's a dell driver that turns a lot of the static elements black or close to black.

What kind of work do you do with that monitor? If you are doing graphics color accuracy is an important thing for you. If you want to game there is no graphics card that can push to 8k well, you would end up a 55'' 4k or even 2k depend on your graphics card.

Work is Word, Zoom, Gmail, spreadsheets, and web. I rarely do anything with graphics, and none of it matters with color accuracy.

Play is TV, movies, and soon to be HDR TV and HDR movies. I also game, though not as much as I used to. I have an Alienware laptop and a Graphics Amplifier, an enclosure for an external graphics card. I plan on getting whatever the next gen NVIDIA or ATI mid-high card is. Right now I have a 1060GTX, which can do HDR at 4k 30hz, I believe. Good enough for TV. The hardware accelerated ray tracing is a game changer, like hardware accelerated textures were many years ago, so I'll probably go NVIDIA.

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

8 K on a monitor is a gimmick. An eagle will not resolve the difference with 4 K. Also, native 8 K will be rare for years. HDR is discernable, widely available now and not a futuristic pipe dream. 8 K up conversion may be useful for large projector screens.

 

[beefkabob]

The LG CX is supposed to come Wednesday. Once it's set up, I'll let you know how it feels. Costco has a 90 day return police and something like 5 years of warranty included. Since I'll use this 6-12+ hours a day, 7 days a week, that might be good.

Now I also wait for a good UST projector to go on sale. Then I'll have a 120" screen in the room too.

 

[bigjacko]

My laptop has an OLED display. I've had no burn in that I've noticed. There's a dell driver that turns a lot of the static elements black or close to black.



Work is Word, Zoom, Gmail, spreadsheets, and web. I rarely do anything with graphics, and none of it matters with color accuracy.

Play is TV, movies, and soon to be HDR TV and HDR movies. I also game, though not as much as I used to. I have an Alienware laptop and a Graphics Amplifier, an enclosure for an external graphics card. I plan on getting whatever the next gen NVIDIA or ATI mid-high card is. Right now I have a 1060GTX, which can do HDR at 4k 30hz, I believe. Good enough for TV. The hardware accelerated ray tracing is a game changer, like hardware accelerated textures were many years ago, so I'll probably go NVIDIA.

What kind of games do you play? Demanding games like AAA games or less demanding games? You will need a lot of GPU power in order to play at 4k and 8k. You need to know how much 8k content is out there to see if it's worth it, but maybe it will become more common in the future. If you keep your monitor for a long time, buying for future proof might be worth it. If you don't know how much GPU power you need, you can see some benchmark, one channel on youtube I can recommand is hardware unboxed. Playing AAA games I think highest setting is a lot harder to run than high setting, but the visual quality does not change that much, so high setting in most game is good enough. Alternative way to play game is get Play station or xbox, they are cheaper than getting gaming PC, and new ones should be able to play at 4k.

For HDR you need to check is it HDR 400, 600 or 1000. I don't know much about HDR but common wisdom is 400 and 600 are not that good, they should not be your main buying focus unless you really want to try. There is also local dimming, if HDR monitor does not have local dimming, it is not a good HDR monitor.

 

[amirm]

I find that 32 to 34 inches is the largest I want a monitor to be. Anything larger and you have to keep turning your head left and right. I have a professional 4K monitor in that size and it is excellent but I had to do a lot to adjust it for comfortable distance, height, etc.

 

[beefkabob]

I usually use two screens at home and three at work. One 34 wouldn't be enough for me. Since Zoom lets me share just a window, not a whole screen, I think one huge screen might work. Biggest downside is lack of touchscreen.

Here's something cool: https://www.lg.com/us/business/oled-displays/lg-55EW5F-A
Transparent OLED display.

 

[maxxevv]

I find that 32 to 34 inches is the largest I want a monitor to be. Anything larger and you have to keep turning your head left and right. I have a professional 4K monitor in that size and it is excellent but I had to do a lot to adjust it for comfortable distance, height, etc.

That's part of the reason why they invented curved screens.

 

[Kouioui]

That's part of the reason why they invented curved screens.

And that's part of why I bought one of the last slightly curved 55" LG OLEDs in 2016. Also has 3D (don't knock it till you try it) and works splendid as a PC monitor at a distance of 55" using RGB 4:4:4 and 150% scaling. Calibrated to 120 cd/m, I have over 8,000 monitor hours with no burn-in or image retention. The new 48" OLED panels might be preferred if you wish to sit closer (but no curve) and native scaling.

 

[cistercian]

My monitor is only 28 inches but it is 4k. It is as big as I can easily fit on the old desk. It plays 4k video well
and is great for viewing digital pictures. I don't see a need for 8k as it is more than enough for me.

If I was getting a much bigger screen then perhaps I would go 8k with a bigger video card to drive it.

 

[dasdoing]

you have to be very near to the screen to take advantage of 8k, so near that you would have to move your head to see the corners

 

[beefkabob]

New hotness. Forehead to screen is 36.5".

 

[dasdoing]

New hotness. Forehead to screen is 36.5".

View attachment 75754

well, that size to distance ratio realy requires 8k. you are basicly having a 4x4k monitor array

 

[dasdoing]

I have a 55" 4k and forehad to screen about 53". I'd rather go bigger and farer (while keeping the ratio) then even more imersive

 

[beefkabob]

It's a learning curve. I've settled on about six browser/app/folder windows. I think I will move up to 9. Then I will place the laptop on the side shelf or a side table. The current video card does hdr at 30hz and normal color at 60hz. I'll either have to replace the laptop or get a video card. Probably just get a video card. Zoom allows sharing in a user selected rectangle, which works for me.

So do I want 55? Unsure. Figuring out. Certainly not at a further distance, and 55 would move the monitor a couple inches closer. Then I'd definitely want 8k. First world problems. I do like the black blacks already.